Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments

Contents:

Author Info

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    An elicitation format prevalently applied in DCE is to offer each respondent a sequence of choice tasks containing more than two choice options. However, empirical evidence indicates that repeated choice tasks influence choice behavior through institutional learning, fatigue, value learning, and strategic response. The study reported in this paper employs a split sample approach based on field surveys using a single binary elicitation format with a majority vote implementation as the baseline to expand the research on effects of sequential binary DCE formats. We provide evidence for effects caused by institutional learning and either strategic behavior or value learning after respondents answered repeated choice questions. However, we did not find any indications for strategic behavior caused by awareness of having multiple choices. The choice between a sequential and a single elicitation format may thus imply a trade-off between decreased choice accuracy and potentially increased strategic behavior due to an incentive incompatible mechanism. Further research is needed to explore strategic behavior induced by incentive incompatible elicitation formats using alternative approaches that are not compromised by a confounded baseline, that facilitate the differentiation between value learning and strategic behavior, and that allow the use of less restrictive model specifications. Such research should also investigate the effects of varying incentives induced by the order in which choice questions are presented to respondents.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR52.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University in its series Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports with number 1052.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Mar 2010
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1052

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 0200
    Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
    Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
    Email:
    Web page: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: discrete choice experiments; split sample approach; elicitation format; incentive compatibility; strategic behavior; learning effects; panel mixed logit models;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2010. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," MPRA Paper 23163, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1052. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Crawford Webmaster).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.